Lewis v. Chittick

Decision Date01 January 1885
Citation25 F. 176
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
PartiesLEWIS, Adm'r, v. CHITTICK and others. [1]

Wm. A Wood, for complainant.

L. H Waters, for defendants.

KREKEL J.

From the pleadings and evidence in this case it appears that in 1871 Burnsides and wife were living upon 60 acres of land in Livingston county, Missouri. While so living they borrowed $300 of school money of the county of Livingston, and secured it by giving a mortgage upon their homestead. Burnsides, not long after the giving the mortgage, died, and his wife administered on the estate. Burnsides, being indebted aside for the school money borrowed of the county, an order of the probate court was in due time made, directing the administrator to sell the land to pay debts, which she did selling all the right, title, and claim of the deceased. At this sale, in 1875, one Bell became the purchaser, and he on the same day sold the land to one O'Dell, subject to the county mortgage. O'Dell afterwards substituted his own mortgage for the one of Bell, and had the original mortgage of Burnsides released. After this O'Dell resold the land to Bell, subject to the county mortgage O'Dell had given. Bell, being again the owner of the land, applied for a loan to the present plaintiff, and obtained it; so much of the loan as was necessary to pay the Livingston county debt being applied in that way and the balance paid to Bell, who, to secure the loan, gave a mortgage upon the land in controversy. No notice was taken in all of these transactions of Mrs. Burnsides' rights. The title to the homestead of Burnsides, under the laws of Missouri, on his death passed to Mrs. Burnsides; but all the parties to the transactions, being ignorant of that fact, dealt with the land as though the whole title had passed by the administrator's sale. Mrs. Burnsides in time removed to the state of Kansas, and there married one Cooper. After this the rights of Mrs. Burnsides (now Cooper) became known, and she and husband sold their interest to the present defendant, and made him a quitclaim deed. Bell's interest in the land had been sold under the deed of trust which he had given to secure the loan of the plaintiff, but he was still in possession when Cooper and wife conveyed the land to defendant. Bell let the defendant into the possession, and he joined that possession to the title of Mrs. Burnsides growing out of her homestead.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wilson v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1899
    ... ... Stephens, 36 Kan. 680, 14 P. 222; Swift v ... Kraemer, 13 Cal. 526, 73 Am. Dec. 603; Tolman v ... Smith, 85 Cal. 280, 24 P. 743; Lewis v ... Chittick, 25 F. 176; Citizens' Nat. Bank v ... Wert, 26 F. 294; Equitable Mortgage Co. v ... Lowry, 55 F. 165; Memphis etc. Co. v. Dow, ... ...
  • Jacobs v. Webster
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1918
    ...than that brought about by a mere mistake as to the identity of the property with which he was dealing. [For exemple, see Lewis, Admr., v. Chittick, 25 F. 176; Cobb Dyer, 69 Me. 494; Muir v. Berkshire, 52 Ind. 149; Cockrum v. West, 122 Ind. 372, 23 N.E. 140; Fowler v. Parsons, 143 Mass. 401......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT